What happens when a new theory is dismissed as both obvious and heretical?
This is the paradox I face in disseminating Elementary Cycles Theory. When I speak of de Broglie recurrences, many physicists shrug: “Of course — we’ve known that since 1924.” When I suggest that time is cyclic, others recoil: “Impossible! That would violate causality, destroy relativity, and imply that the universe repeats itself.”
But both objections miss the point.
The novelty of ECT is not in noticing that particles have periodicity. It’s in taking that periodicity seriously — implementing it as a dynamical constraint, not a kinematic curiosity. When the intrinsic recurrence is imposed via periodic boundary conditions, consistent with the principle of stationary action, something remarkable happens: quantization emerges.
From this classical assumption, we derive the entire mathematical structure of quantum mechanics — Hilbert spaces, commutation relations, Schrödinger dynamics — without any postulated quantization rules. The structure of gauge interactions follows from geometric modulations of periodicity. Even the Feynman path integral arises naturally from the interference of classical cyclic paths.
So why the resistance?
Because physicists are trained to expect new physics to come with new parameters — extra dimensions, new symmetries, fine-tuned constants. ECT introduces none of these. It reformulates what we already know in a deeper, more coherent language. And that, paradoxically, makes it seem “too trivial” to be revolutionary — while being “too radical” to be accepted.
But history teaches us that great ideas often begin this way. The principle of relativity. The equivalence of gravity and acceleration. The quantization of light. All were once “trivial” or “impossible” — until they changed the world.
Lascia un commento